JUDGMENT : SANGEETA K. VISHEN, J. 1. By this petition, inter-alia, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are praying for issuance of writ of mandamus, certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari so also, the direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 28.07.2014 passed by the respondent no. 2 i.e. the Assistant Collector, Tharad as well as the order dated 15.07.2015 passed by the respondent no. 4 i.e. the District Collector whereby, the order of the Assistant Collector dated 28.07.2014, directing vesting of the land in the State Government, has been confirmed. 2. Issue rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. J.K. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. 3. Tersely stated are the facts: 3.1 The ancestor of the petitioners, was refugee and residing at Kachchh. The ancestor of the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as “the allottee” or “the petitioners”, wherever the context warrants) was allotted the land situated at survey 365 at village Sukhpar, taluka Rapar, district Kutch. Since the land, was infertile, the allottee did not take the possession and requested the concerned authorities to allot the land at some other place. The allottee, did not find appropriate occupation at Rapar and hence shifted to taluka Tharad of district Banaskantha, where, they were allotted the part of land, bearing survey no. 23/1B/paiki vide order dated 28.04.1988 (hereinafter referred to as “land in question”). The petitioners are in possession and cultivating the land in question. 3.2. Apropos the applications filed by the allottees, the District Collector, Kachchh, passed an order dated 13.11.2013 directing restoration of the possession of the land allotted at villages: Nanda, Bambhansar, Sukhpar and Adesar to the State Government and the Mamlatdar, Rapar was directed to take possession. To the shock and surprise of the allottee, a notice came to be issued under section 79A of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) requiring the allottee to vacate the land in question at taluka Tharad. 3.3 The petitioners appeared and pointed out that the land in question, is the only source of livelihood which has been in possession since last more than 24 years. 3.3 The petitioners appeared and pointed out that the land in question, is the only source of livelihood which has been in possession since last more than 24 years. The petitioners, also pointed out that the petitioners have no interest in the land allotted at district Kachchh and urged that considering the condition of the allottee, the proceedings under section 79A of the Code, may be dropped as there was no breach of conditions. The Assistant Collector, not considering the request, passed an order dated 30.05.2012 as he was of the opinion that the allottee was obliged to hand over the possession of the land of Kachchh district; however, the allottee, failed to do so and therefore, the conditions enumerated in the allotment order of the year 1988 passed by the Collector, Tharad, have been breached. The Assistant Collector, also concluded that the allottee, has not got the land cancelled and therefore, has taken benefits at two places. Accordingly, the Assistant Collector, directed vesting of the land in the State Government. 3.4 Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before the Collector, Banaskantha, which came to be partly allowed vide order dated 08.05.2014 and the matter was remanded to the Assistant Collector, who, passed an order dated 28.07.2014 against which, an appeal was preferred before the Collector, who passed the order dated 15.07.2015, confirming the order dated 28.07.2014. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. During the course of hearing of the captioned writ petition, Mr. S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate has tendered the affidavit-cumundertaking of the petitioners. The same is directed to be taken on record. The contents of which, read thus: “1. I state that the petitioners have not availed any benefits from the land granted at Rapar Kachchh. It is further stated that in fact, the petitioners have not even taken possession of the said land at Tal: Rapar, District Kachchh. It is stated that the petitioners are not interested in the land situated at Tal: Rapar Kachchh and are only interested in the land situated at Village Tharad, District Banaskantha where the petitioners have settled and are cultivating and using the same since 1988. 2. It is stated that the petitioners are not interested in the land situated at Tal: Rapar Kachchh and are only interested in the land situated at Village Tharad, District Banaskantha where the petitioners have settled and are cultivating and using the same since 1988. 2. It is submitted that therefore, the petitioners undertake that they will not claim land at Tal: Rapar, Kachchh and furthermore, order of vesting such land in the Government has already been passed which has not been challenged and further that the petitioners have even earlier also availed no benefits from the said land at Tal: Rapar District Kachchh.” 5. Mr. S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate, appearing with Mr. Meet Kakadia, learned advocate, submitted that the allottee, has not committed any breach of the conditions with respect to the land in question at taluka Tharad. It is submitted that in absence of any breach, no order could have been passed by the Deputy Collector holding that there is a breach of conditions of the order of allotment. It is submitted that since, the land was infertile, the allottee, did not take possession and shifted to taluka Tharad. Allotment orders were passed in the year 1988 which, contained various conditions and one of which, was handing over of the possession of the land of Rapar taluka. It is submitted that the allottee, being illiterate and since has left the district Kachchh and taken possession at taluka Tharad, did not take any benefit of the land which was allotted at district Kachchh. 5.1. It is submitted that the allottee has shown readiness and willingness to hand over the possession. It is submitted that the Collector, Kachchh, has recorded that there was communication gap between the two offices. Also, knowingly or unknowingly, the allottee has not handed over the possession. The Collector, Kachchh, considering the statement of the allottee/petitioners, passed an order dated 13.11.2013 whereby, it issued direction to the Mamlatdar to take the possession of the land. 5.2 It is submitted that as is discernible from the contentions recorded in the order dated 13.11.2013 of the Collector, Kachchh, there is not a single allegation against the allottee that it has played any mischief. 5.2 It is submitted that as is discernible from the contentions recorded in the order dated 13.11.2013 of the Collector, Kachchh, there is not a single allegation against the allottee that it has played any mischief. The said order, has attained finality and therefore in absence of any allegation of illegality having been committed by the allottee, the order dated 28.07.2014 passed by the Deputy Collector, inter-alia, holding that there is a breach, would not be in a right earnest. 5.3 It is submitted that even otherwise, considering the fact that there was no intention on the part of the allottee to take undue benefit at two places that the petitioners, are ready to undertake before this Court that the petitioners, are not interested in the land situated at taluka Rapar and only interest, is in the land situated at taluka Tharad, district Banaskantha. It is submitted that the undertaking be accepted and appropriate orders be passed or else the heirs of the allottee that is the petitioners, would be deprived of their livelihood and suffer an economic death. It is submitted that the order of the Deputy Collector, is to be decided on the anvil of the object of allotment of the land, which was to settle the refugees. The State Government, considering the condition of the refugees, had formulated the policy for grant of the land who have migrated from Pakistan. Once, there is a beneficial policy floated for the refugees, such a harsh action, would be unjust and unreasonable. It is submitted that there is no breach committed by the allottee; however, assuming without admitting that there is a breach it is urged to condone the inadvertent lapse as the land in question, is the only source of livelihood. If the land in question is directed to be taken, the petitioners, would be rendered landless. The decision taken by the Deputy Collector, would be contrary to the said laudable object and therefore urged that the breach, if at all, be condoned. It is therefore submitted that considering the condition of the petitioners, so also the facts involved, the order of the Assistant Collector and the Collector deserve to be quashed and set aside. 6. On the other hand, Mr. It is therefore submitted that considering the condition of the petitioners, so also the facts involved, the order of the Assistant Collector and the Collector deserve to be quashed and set aside. 6. On the other hand, Mr. J.K. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader, while opposing the writ petition, has submitted that the allottee, was initially granted the land in question at district Kachchh; however, since it was infertile, acceding to the request, a decision was taken to allot the land at taluka Tharad. It is submitted that in exercise of the powers conferred under section 37(4) of the Code, the orders were passed in Form “I.” Together with the Form, conditions were attached and as per the condition 10, it was the obligation on the part of allottee, to hand over the possession of the land at taluka Rapar. Condition 11, specifically provides that if the authorities, find any breach of any of the conditions, the land, would be vested in the State Government without any compensation. It is therefore submitted that when the land in question, was allotted to the allottee at taluka Tharad, it was the obligation on its part, to have handed over the possession of the land at district Kachchh; however, while not doing so, the allottee, tried to take advantage at both the places. It is submitted that somewhere in the year 2010, it came to the notice of the authorities that some illegal transactions, have been executed on the basis of the Power of Attorney in favour of some third parties. 6.1 It is submitted that only when the proceedings, were initiated that on behalf of the allottee, willingness has been shown to surrender the land. In fact, as per the conditions 10 and 11, there was an obligation on the allottee to have handed over the possession immediately, having not done so, there is a clear breach of condition 10 and as a result of condition 11, the land, has been directed to be vested in the State Government. It is submitted that instead of justifying the stand, it was expected of the petitioners to have seek condonation of the lapse. Instead, the petitioners are justifying the action on the ground that the petitioners, have volunteered, handing over the possession, which stand, on the part of the petitioners, is not in a right earnest. It is submitted that instead of justifying the stand, it was expected of the petitioners to have seek condonation of the lapse. Instead, the petitioners are justifying the action on the ground that the petitioners, have volunteered, handing over the possession, which stand, on the part of the petitioners, is not in a right earnest. It is submitted that other than the petitioners, there are other cases, where, mischief has been played and taking undue advantage, the parties have tried to dispose of the land which, was given to them as a measure of resettlement and not for the purpose of earning profit. It is therefore submitted that the order of the Deputy Collector, holding that there is a breach of conditions 10 and 11 of the grant order, is in the right earnest and therefore, no error has been committed either by the Deputy Collector or for that matter by the Collector, confirming the order. 7. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the documents available on the record. 8. As is discernible from the record, approximately 42 families, being the refugees, were resettled at Kachchh and the Assistant Collector has passed an order allotting the land. The land, since was infertile, it is the case of the petitioners that the possession of the land was not taken. Somewhere in the year 1988, the Assistant Collector, Tharad, in exercise of the powers conferred under the Code, passed an order allotting the government waste land of A 10 - 00 gunthas to each of the families. On the basis of the order of the Assistant Collector dated 28.4.1988, the Mamlatdar, Tharad, passed consequential order incorporating various terms and conditions. As per condition 10, the allottee was obliged to hand over the possession of the land of Santhani at taluka Rapar. Condition no. 11, was to the effect that if the breach is found of any of the conditions, the possession of the land, would be taken by the State Government. It appears that the allottee, got settled at taluka Tharad and was in possession and cultivating the land in question. No steps were taken either by the allottee or by the revenue authorities for handing over or taking over the possession of the land at district Kachchh. 9. It appears that the allottee, got settled at taluka Tharad and was in possession and cultivating the land in question. No steps were taken either by the allottee or by the revenue authorities for handing over or taking over the possession of the land at district Kachchh. 9. Pertinently, there were some illegalities committed by third parties, which led to an inquiry by the revenue authorities and as a result whereof, the orders were passed by the District Collector in the year 2011, directing vesting of the land in the State Government. On the basis of the order passed by the Collector, Kachchh, proceedings were initiated by the Assistant Collector, Tharad, which led to the passing of orders with respect to other villages. The said order, was unsuccessfully challenged before the Collector. A group of writ petitions, being Special Civil Application no. 2898 of 2014 and allied matters, Special Civil Application no. 2900 of 2014 and allied matters and Special Civil Application no. 2908 of 2014 and allied matters were filed before this Court. The said writ petitions, have been disposed of by separate common judgments dated 7.9.2022 and 10.10.2022 respectively. In the common judgment passed in Special Civil Application no. 2908 of 2014 and allied matters, this Court, has observed thus: “9. The petitioners have filed additional affidavit and alongwith the affidavit, they have placed on record the two representations, both dated 02.01.2007, followed by another representation dated 08.07.2008. Undeniably, the said representations have been received by the office of the Mamlatdar, Collector, Circle Officer and the concerned MLA. In the representation addressed to the Collector, Kutch, it has been clearly stated that some miscreants are trying to dispose of the land by forging the documents in the name of the allottees. The allottees also informed that they have already received the land, however, they shall not be responsible or have nothing to do with the said transaction. It was also pointed out that till date, no steps have been taken to carry out the correction in the revenue record. In the last paragraph, the allottees, requested the State Government to seal the revenue record and take it in its possession. In another letter/representation to the Mamlatdar, the concern of disposal of the land in question by miscreants was reiterated. The allottees requested the Mamlatdar to take action. In the last paragraph, the allottees, requested the State Government to seal the revenue record and take it in its possession. In another letter/representation to the Mamlatdar, the concern of disposal of the land in question by miscreants was reiterated. The allottees requested the Mamlatdar to take action. Then comes the communication dated 08.07.2008 by one Gadhvi Ranmaldan Badraji to the District Collector, Kutch, requesting that his name be cancelled only with a view to seeing that it is not misused. 10. Despite the said representations by the allottees to the Collector, Mamlatdar and other authorities, it appears that no steps were taken by the authorities. Only in the year 2011, as aforesaid, the Collector, Kutch, passed an order on the basis of the proposal dated 14.02.2011 of the Deputy Assistant Collector, Anjar. The ancestors of the petitioners/ representatives of the allottees remained present before the Collector and pointed out about the representations and had also shown their willingness to hand over the possession. The Collector, Kutch therefore, passed an order dated 13.05.2011, directing the land to be vested in the State Government. So far as the conversion of the land by the order of the Mamlatdar dated 11.02.2008 is concerned, it was quashed and set aside so also, the entry no. 349. At this stage, it is also required to be noted that the order dated 13.05.2011 passed by the Collector, Kutch was subject matter of challenge before the learned Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), by the so called purchaser which, according to the case status, has been disposed of and to the best of the knowledge of the petitioners, that order has attained finality and not challenged before the higher forum. 11. As aforesaid, the Collector, Kutch, has recorded in detail, about the stand of the allottees. The Collector, after hearing the petitioners, third parties and the State Government, directed vesting of the land in the State Government and as aforesaid, also cancelled the order dated 11.02.2008, passed by the Mamlatdar, converting the land from new tenure to old tenure and the entry no. 349 of sale. The Collector, in its order, has categorically recorded that the land has been allotted to the refugees at Tharad. But, the land continued to remain in the name of the allottees. It is further recorded that there is a lapse on the part of the local office. 349 of sale. The Collector, in its order, has categorically recorded that the land has been allotted to the refugees at Tharad. But, the land continued to remain in the name of the allottees. It is further recorded that there is a lapse on the part of the local office. That the Talati has not informed to the higher authority about the allottees not using the land. Despite the land having not being used by the original allottee, it has been converted into old tenure land. The Collector has also noted about the transaction of the year 2007 and conversion of the land in the year 2008 from new tenure to old tenure. The said illegality has not been attributed to the allottees or petitioners, but the third parties. Taking note of the private complaint, the Collector had also recommended initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the officers. With the aforesaid observations, the Collector passed an order dated 13.05.2011 whereby, the land in question of village Bambhansar was directed to be vested in the State Government. Additionally, the Collector also quashed the order of the Mamlatdar, converting the land from new tenure to old tenure, so also the entry. In the whole order of the Collector, Kutch, there is not a whisper or any allegation worth the name, made against the petitioners or any of the allottees about illegal disposal of the land. 12. Therefore, from the order of the Collector, Kutch, it is clear that it is not the case of the revenue authorities that any mischief or illegality has been committed by the petitioners or their ancestors and by doing so, they took advantage. On the contrary, as is discernible from the order, the allottees and petitioners had extended not only their consent but, also brought it to the notice of the revenue authorities about the illegality and the transaction by third parties. Mere continuation of the name of the petitioners in the revenue record, it cannot be said that the petitioners have taken any benefit at both the places, namely, at Rapar taluka as well as Tharad taluka. Therefore, from the contents of the order of the Collector, Kutch, it is difficult to conclude that there was any mala-fide or ill-intention on the part of the petitioners to have continued with the possession at Rapar and to take advantage. Therefore, from the contents of the order of the Collector, Kutch, it is difficult to conclude that there was any mala-fide or ill-intention on the part of the petitioners to have continued with the possession at Rapar and to take advantage. Also, nothing has been placed on record to substantiate that after the representations were made by the allottees in the years 2007 and 2008, that the authorities at Taluka Rapar, have taken any steps. Having not taken any steps and then to find fault of the allottees and the petitioners, would be unreasonable and unjust. 13. Adverting to the order, which has been passed by Assistant Collector, Tharad, it is required to be noted that the Assistant Collector has stated the facts in one paragraph and by abrupt conclusion in the operative portion, has made a reference of the order passed by the Collector, Kutch, dated 13.05.2011. The Assistant Collector has concluded that there is a breach of conditions and therefore, directed vesting of the land in the State Government. The Assistant Collector was also of the opinion that the land was supposed to be returned back but, the same has been disposed of. There is nothing in the order of the Assistant Collector to come to the conclusion that there is a breach of conditions of the order of 1988. In the opinion of this Court, such findings arrived at by the Assistant Collector are without any evidence, arbitrary and perverse and cannot be countenanced. 14. In the revision application before the Collector, the petitioners have taken all the available grounds, including filing of the application and bringing it to the notice of the authorities about the disposal of the land illegally. It is required to be noted that the order of the Collector is running into four paragraphs. In paragraph 1, it has given the details of the proceedings, followed by the paragraph wherein, the contentions of the petitioners have been recorded. In paragraph 2, the Collector recorded the stand of the petitioners and in subsequent paragraph, the Collector had given its finding. Sub-paragraph (1), is about allotment of the land in favour of the petitioners in the year 1988, thereafter, the fact about the petitioners not handing over the possession and taking benefits at two places. In paragraph 2, the Collector recorded the stand of the petitioners and in subsequent paragraph, the Collector had given its finding. Sub-paragraph (1), is about allotment of the land in favour of the petitioners in the year 1988, thereafter, the fact about the petitioners not handing over the possession and taking benefits at two places. In the third paragraph, the reference is of the conversion of the land from new tenure to old tenure and sale in favour of third parties so also, the order of the Collector dated 13.05.2011. In unnumbered paragraph 3, the Collector took note of the fact of allotment of the land on new and impartible tenure. In the subsequent paragraph, which would be penultimate paragraph, the Collector, while taking note of the order dated 13.05.2011 passed by the Collector, Kutch as well as the order dated 30.05.2012 passed by the Assistant Collector, straightaway concluded that there is a breach of condition no. 11. However, disregarding the grounds raised by the petitioners, the Collector has straightaway, without applying its mind, has confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector dated 30.05.2012. which exhibits sheer non-application of mind on the part of the Collector for, none of the grounds raised by the petitioners in the revision application has been dealt with. 15. In the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited vs. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, it has been held and observed that the reasons have virtually become an indispensable component of the decision making process, observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi judicial and even by the administrative bodies. It is also well established that reasons facilitates the process of judicial review by the superior courts. When the administrative, judicial or quasi judicial authorities are passing any orders, the order has to be a reasoned order. Any unreasoned order would be in violation of principles of natural justice. Mere reiteration and half-hearted reiteration of the order of the Collector, cannot be said to be the findings arrived at by the Collector, Tharad. Therefore, it was expected of the Collector to have assigned the reasons. Had the Assistant Collector and Collector examined the order of the Collector, Kutch dated 13.05.2011 minutely, the conclusion about breach of conditions by the petitioners, would not have been there. Therefore, it was expected of the Collector to have assigned the reasons. Had the Assistant Collector and Collector examined the order of the Collector, Kutch dated 13.05.2011 minutely, the conclusion about breach of conditions by the petitioners, would not have been there. Considering the steps taken by the petitioners and the inaction on the part of the revenue authorities, the order passed by the Assistant Collector is illegal and bad as well. Therefore, both the orders, namely, the order of the Assistant Collector dated 30.05.2012 as well as the order dated 24.12.2013 passed by the District Collector, deserve to be quashed and set aside.” 10. In the present case, the Collector, Kachchh, has passed an order dated 13.11.2013. The Collector, has noted the facts about allotment in the year 1988. Also the fact that the allottees have not taken any steps and their names continued in the revenue record. With respect to the lands in the districts of Kachchh and Banaskantha, the Collector was also of the opinion that the allottees, have taken dual benefits. It is also recorded in the order that there appears to be communication gap between the two offices of the districts, namely, Kachchh and Banaskantha. The Collector, was of the opinion that the allottees have committed breach of condition 10 and therefore, directed vested of the land of Kachchh in the State Government. 11. On the basis whereof, the Assistant Collector, Tharad, in the first instance, has passed an order dated 30.5.2012, directing vesting of the land, which was challenged before the Collector and the Collector, remanded the same. In remand, the Deputy Collector, passed an order dated 28.7.2014, making reference to the proceedings before this Court being Special Civil Application Nos. 2898, 2899 to 2912 of 2014, 2304 of 2014 and allied matters. The Deputy Collector, was also of the opinion that the allottees have not placed on record any evidence and having failed to do so, the land was directed to be vested in the State Government. In the order of the Deputy Collector, there is a specific reference of the application by the allottees to the Mamlatdar as well as the M.L.A. in the year 2007. The Deputy Collector, recorded that the alleged illegality was within the knowledge of the revenue authorities, but the Mamlatdar, Rapar, has not taken any steps. In the order of the Deputy Collector, there is a specific reference of the application by the allottees to the Mamlatdar as well as the M.L.A. in the year 2007. The Deputy Collector, recorded that the alleged illegality was within the knowledge of the revenue authorities, but the Mamlatdar, Rapar, has not taken any steps. Reference is also made about the sale of the land of the allottees of Bambhansar and therefore, the Deputy Collector, observed that it is difficult to believe that the said illegality was not within the knowledge of the allottees. The Deputy Collector, therefore, concluded that the allottees have taken a dual benefit which aspect has been acknowledged by the Collector in order dated 13.11.2013. Hence, the Deputy Collector, directed vesting of the land in the State Government. 12. The petitioners, being aggrieved, have preferred an appeal before the Collector, Banaskantha who, passed an order dated 15.7.2015; however, the Collector, also failed to appreciate the factum about the benefits which have been taken by the allottees. The order of the Collector, after recording the stand of the appellant and the respondent, gave its finding which, runs into four paragraphs. In paragraph 1, while giving the details of the proceedings and making a reference of the order dated 28.4.1988, it has been held and observed that till the date the order dated 30.5.2012 was passed by the Assistant Collector, the allottee has not produced any documents, substantiating the factum of handing over of the land of village Sukhpar bearing survey no. 365. The Collector, was therefore, of the opinion that the allottee by continuing the possession at both the places, has taken dual benefit. In paragraphs 2 and 3, the Collector, had come to the conclusion that as per the statement recorded on 11.5.2011, the petitioner is staying at Sonalnagar, Lakhpat, Kutch and is not cultivating the land on its own and therefore, the petitioner has committed the breach of the grant order. In paragraph 4, the Collector, reiterated about taking dual benefit. So far as paragraph 1 is concerned, the conclusion of the Collector that the allottee has taken dual benefit, is not supported by any evidence and therefore, the findings are bad. In paragraph 4, the Collector, reiterated about taking dual benefit. So far as paragraph 1 is concerned, the conclusion of the Collector that the allottee has taken dual benefit, is not supported by any evidence and therefore, the findings are bad. In paragraphs 2 and 3, the findings that the petitioner are not cultivating the land and cultivation is by another party, also could not have been gone into as, the issue, was about the breach of condition 10 on the ground of not handing over the possession of the land at Kutch. It is difficult to fathom as to whether it was open to the Deputy Collector and the Collector to have gone into the aspect of cultivation by the petitioner personally of the land at Tharad. Be that as it may. Therefore, the bare perusal of the said paragraphs suggest that the order of the Collector, is bereft of any reasons. 13. In the case of Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, the Apex Court, has laid down the principle for recording the reasons. It has been held and observed that the reasons, have virtually become an indispensable component of the decision making process observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi judicial and even by the administrative bodies. That reasons facilitates the process of judicial review by the superior courts. It is well settled proposition of law that when the administrative, judicial or quasi judicial authorities are passing any orders, the orders has to be a reasoned order. Any unreasoned order, would be in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, it was expected of the Collector, to have assigned the reasons. The order therefore is passed in violation of principles of natural justice. 14. Pertinently, this Court, while allowing the writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 2908 of 2013, has considered the aspect about the knowledge and inaction on the part of the revenue authorities. Perceptibly, it was the allottees, who have brought it to the notice of the revenue authorities about the illegality or the illegal transaction. The submissions of filing of the first information report on behalf of the State Government, is also misconceived for, the first information report has not been lodged by the State Government, but by the private parties against the persons, who have executed the illegal transaction. The submissions of filing of the first information report on behalf of the State Government, is also misconceived for, the first information report has not been lodged by the State Government, but by the private parties against the persons, who have executed the illegal transaction. The Deputy Collector and the Collector, failed to consider the said aspect and committed the similar error, which has been committed earlier by the Assistant Collector and the Collector in passing orders and directing vesting of the land in the State Government. This Court, has quashed and set aside the orders passed by the Assistant Collector, Tharad and Collector, Banaskantha and therefore, the issue being identical and the orders have been passed by the Deputy Collector and Collector on same lines, they also deserve to be quashed and set aside. 15. Perceptibly, the land was granted in favour of the allottee with a laudable object of resettling the refugees. Since the land, was found to be infertile, the allottee did not take the possession; however, the name of the allottee continued in the revenue record. While acceding to the request of the allottee for grant of an alternate land, that a decision came to be taken in the year 1988 for allotment of the land at taluka Tharad, district Banaskantha and as a result whereof, the orders have been passed incorporating various conditions, one of which, is condition 10. According to which, as discussed hereinabove, there was an obligation on the part of the allottee to have handed over the possession; however, it appears that the allottee was unaware about the consequential steps to be taken. Therefore, the said ignorance on the part of the allottee/petitioners, cannot entail such a harsh action of taking away the livelihood. Even otherwise, the object with which the land has been granted was to resettle and rehabilitate the refugees. Therefore, decision of the Deputy Collector, Tharad dated 28.7.2014, would run counter to the policy with which, the land came to be granted in favour of the refugees. Therefore, on all the counts viz. Even otherwise, the object with which the land has been granted was to resettle and rehabilitate the refugees. Therefore, decision of the Deputy Collector, Tharad dated 28.7.2014, would run counter to the policy with which, the land came to be granted in favour of the refugees. Therefore, on all the counts viz. considering the object with which the land was granted and the nature of the lapse which is being alleged to have been committed by the allottee/petitioners, so also on the ground of the orders being unreasoned and in violation of the principles of natural justice, the order of the Deputy Collector, Tharad dated 28.7.2014 as well as the order dated 15.7.2015 passed by the Collector, Banaskantha, deserve to be quashed and set aside and are hereby quashed and set aside. 16. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.